tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post4618566126493215251..comments2013-09-23T20:40:03.587-05:00Comments on U.S. Intellectual History: All the Shepherds are Sheep, too: The Great Commission against ConservatismIndy Photo Presshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14307611680484362211noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-46942192267453770882013-01-08T21:33:59.119-06:002013-01-08T21:33:59.119-06:00Fascinating, Mr. Bartee. If a conservative tree f...Fascinating, Mr. Bartee. If a conservative tree falls and it&#39;s not covered by CNN, does it blow on a butterfly&#39;s butt in Boston?<br /><br />Via talk radio, Dr. Thomas Sowell is both better known and more beloved by more millions than Drs. Chomsky and dare I say Zinn.<br /><br />I&#39;m uncertain that the thesis scores here, although I&#39;m pleased to see a shoutout @ me old blogbrother Dr. Hunter Baker, PhD, J.D. ;-) <br /><br />The &quot;Christian Right&quot; has been remarkably coherent since Francis Schaeffer suggested to jerry fallwell that there might be some sort of &quot;moral majority&quot; that crosses sectarian lines. The predicted evangelical abandonment of Mitt Romney over his &quot;quasi-Christian&quot; sect simply didn&#39;t occur, and indeed Al Mohler and other top neo-Falwellians have rallied behind the Roman church&#39;s resistance to the Obaman contraception edict on religious freedom grounds, not moral ones [since they don&#39;t necessarily oppose contraception].<br /><br />Further, Luther&#39;s spawn [not to mention the papists!] have at last made theological peace with the idea that there will always be Jews, that is, children of Abraham who will remain unconverted until such a time when time&#39;s up for the human race. In fact, these are the greatest friends of modern Israel, more uncritical of Israel than many or most American Jews, and without whom Israel might at this moment be yet another memory plowed over like that other erstwhile American ally, South Vietnam.<br /><br />The irony. The theologico-political irony. Take that, Leo Strauss. <br /><br />[Strauss&#39; letter to National Review re Israel, 1956]<br /><br />http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005967.html<br /><br />[I don&#39;t blame Leo Strauss, who fled Hitler. The Lutheran he knew best was his brilliant contemporary Karl Barth, who was even more useless than Weimar in standing up for Germany&#39;s Jews. Two Kingdoms, God&#39;s and man&#39;s, and the latter is of far less concern. But if this is Christianity, I want my money back.]Tom Van Dykehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-47261165732945650772013-01-08T16:25:54.150-06:002013-01-08T16:25:54.150-06:00Part 2 of the reply.
Kirkeans talk about communit...Part 2 of the reply.<br /><br />Kirkeans talk about community and some paleos (like Paul Gottfried) write about historicism. The mention of historicism makes both evangelicals and traditionalists uneasy because of the radical tendency towards non-universal beliefs. Truth, according to historicism, is set forth in history and tradition. Even though Kirk disliked the neo-cons, he was no historicist, although that would have probably benefitted him if he had chosen that route. If you are a Bible-believing evangelical, it’s hard to support a historicist account of Scripture. Therefore, this alliance between evangelicals, the Republican Party, and neo-cons come together strangely. Figures like Jerry Falwell seemed to encourage this, but I’m not sure the evangelicals and the neo-cons have the same aims, although, again, some would disagree. We might take notice that evangelicals are not supporting Chuck Hagel’s nomination and many traditionalists are supportive (See Albert Mohler’s recent briefing and Scott McConnell’s article in The American Conservative to compare and contrast).<br /><br />Thanks for the suggestions, too. <br />SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-14199986791402666242013-01-08T16:24:24.398-06:002013-01-08T16:24:24.398-06:00Mark, you are correct that more than ideas separat...Mark, you are correct that more than ideas separate these groups. History and theology played great roles, too. From the trajectory I am working with here, the “populism” would have entered in as early as the late sixties with the revival of Biblical inerrancy against more modernist claims (Then, it was still too early to talk specifically about a “postmodern” strain in theology, I believe). The “Texas mafia” spearheaded by Paige Patterson carried with them a populism because they saw themselves as standing against elite academic liberalism. Academic liberalism, they believe(d), destroyed the major biblical doctrine of inerrancy. As you may notice, there was both an intellectual and instrumental element to the conservative resurgence. From the instrumental side this meant convincing many Baptist lay that reclaiming seminaries and the Southern Baptist Convention was a worthy endeavor. They probably had to present a semi-popular case to sell their objectives to large church audiences (and pastors too), many without a formal education. Many of the baby-boomer generation remember coming into contact with people such as Patterson, Criswell, Rodgers, and others because of the efforts of CR. So yes, a populism entered in inadvertently through the efforts to re-route the tide of liberalism.<br /><br />Outsiders may mistake, as I try to point out, populism for the prevalence of the Great Commission in evangelical intellectual life. GC calls for Christians to humble themselves for the sake of gaining followers to Christ. It just does not fit with how we think of intellectual life, which is usually the opposite of humility. In other words, GC was not written primarily for the learned—think about the highways and the hedges example found in Luke 14:23. Many of the younger generation of evangelicals want to bring together GC with intellectual without falling back solely on populism or some variant.<br /><br />I also think that using populism to explain evangelical and Southern Baptist intellectuals can be misguiding (I know you’re not doing that, either). Baptist seminaries, from my understanding, are rigorous institutions. They house serious scholars who are deep into academic language on campus. The average evangelical would probably feel unwelcome in such an academic atmosphere. Many of the theological studies that transpire from seminaries are massive explorations of miniscule topics. Most seminaries, like colleges and universities, have a public persona, but largely they are places of scholarship. <br />I’m not sure we can look to a specific point of impact or fallout between Kirk, for example, and evangelicals as I offhandedly try to demonstrate. Many of the Baptist seminaries were doctrinally “liberal” during the time that The Conservative Mind was written and published (1953). Kirk probably ignored evangelicals altogether. Because the evangelicals gravitated into the movement during its second phase (the beginning of the neo-conservative period), they would have been considered an enemy to Kirk and the traditionalists by association alone with the neo-cons. Paul Murphy has a great explanation about some of this history in his book The Rebuke of History. There was fallout over the NEH chair between Mel Bradford (traditionalist) and William Bennett (neo-con). Evangelicals have tended to support the neo-cons because they (neo-cons) fought so hard against relativism during the culture wars. I believe this is at least one place where the divide shapes up.<br /><br />SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-25350312336858936332013-01-08T13:53:40.613-06:002013-01-08T13:53:40.613-06:00Thanks for these reflections, Seth, pointing us to...Thanks for these reflections, Seth, pointing us to newer tensions in modern conservativism beyond Nash&#39;s traditionalist-libertarian-anticommunist framework.<br /><br />Where does populism enter in? It seems the fallout between a Kirk and a Billy Graham go beyond differing ideas. At least, I&#39;ve found Kirk, Weaver, and forgotten traditionalists like Robert Nisbet, Peter Viereck, Clinton Rossiter to have more in common with Reinhold Niebuhr and the old Protestant left (&quot;mass society&quot; critics all!) than with 1950s fundamentalism or new evangelicalism.<br /><br />On traditionalists remembered and forgotten, check out Peter Kolozi&#39;s recent dissertation, &quot;Conservatives against Capitalism,&quot; written under Corey Robin. Mark T. Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687874101232569510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-54756963658133682912013-01-08T13:14:45.465-06:002013-01-08T13:14:45.465-06:00Russell Kirk&#39;s definition of order is defined ...Russell Kirk&#39;s definition of order is defined well by Kirkean scholar Wesley McDonald. He writes, &quot;The underlying customs, mores, habits, and traditions that constitute the moral ethos of a community establish its order.&quot; (Russell Kirk and the Age of Ideology, 117--paperback edition). This is a concise definition of order from a conservative/traditionalist perspective. <br /><br />SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38727046.post-87735332260952239892013-01-08T12:41:53.266-06:002013-01-08T12:41:53.266-06:00Thanks for the interesting post. I wonder if you ...Thanks for the interesting post. I wonder if you could elaborate on the concept of &quot;order&quot; in your definition of conservative.<br /><br />&quot;By conservative, I mean someone who believes in the ability of Western culture and Christian humanism to render order in society.&quot;Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13241595433917371787noreply@blogger.com